| Mr Khan said: I thought that was the bikini, or does it get worse than that? |
http://www.vgmuseum.com/end/nes/b/met.htm
See for yourself
Going to pretend I didn't screw up that hotlink
| Khuutra said: Going to pretend I didn't screw up that hotlink |
Aye, now i can't even see it going to the main page, cuz of cookies. I caught it in another browser though.
Yup... that's a space-bikini
I guess i'll concede that point.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
|
Khuutra said: And your perception about feminism is wrong; feminism is simply the belief that women should have equal status, rights, and privileges when compared to men. It's nothing more complicated than that. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism (in the Anti-Feminism section)
"Writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Daphne Patai oppose some forms of feminism, though they identify as feminists. They argue, for example, that feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women.[195] Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge argue that the term "anti-feminist" is used to silence academic debate about feminism."[196]
seiya19 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism (in the Anti-Feminism section) "Writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Daphne Patai oppose some forms of feminism, though they identify as feminists. They argue, for example, that feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women.[195] Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge argue that the term "anti-feminist" is used to silence academic debate about feminism."[196] |
It is not clear what point you are trying to make here
| RolStoppable said: Seeing Samus without her armor at the end of a game hardly differs to seeing bigger mansions in Luigi's Mansion after completing the game with more money. The former can be interpreted as reward for men who like to look at women while the latter can be interpreted as reward for people who like to look at big houses. Taken to the extreme, the former is sexist while the latter makes greedy bastards who like to walk all over others to get richer feel good. But... They are just video games. Essentially, you get to see more the better you played. And that's it. We live in the age of the internet which is full of porn. It's outright ridiculous to view Metroid games as designed for men just because you can see Samus without her armor at the end of the games. The implication is that guys play a video game for a couple of hours to see a short scene or picture of a woman without her armor. What a load of nonsense. That's not why anybody plays the games. It also doesn't make Samus worse as a character. She's a woman, why shouldn't we be allowed to see her? What's wrong with her being portrayed as beautiful on top of being powerful? The only people who could have problems with this must be feminists or ugly chicks. But this defense only applies to the first three Metroid games and the Metroid Prime trilogy. When Samus hops around in her Zero Suit or when she talks during the middle of the game as in Fusion, Zero Mission and the worst offender Other M, that's when her character is damaged in various ways. The games shouldn't be interrupted by dialogues and monologues, because these things weren't in the first batch of games. They do not belong in the Metroid series and additional information must be fed to the player like it was done in the Metroid Prime. Echoes and Corruption have characters that give you instructions which is still acceptable, although preferably Metroid games should be without them. Isolation and loneliness are staples of the series, after all. As for the Zero Suit specifically, it's easily the worst section in Zero Mission. I don't think anyone really likes it, it's simply accepted because it doesn't take away too much from an otherwise well made game. Other M is wrong on so many levels, but that has been talked about enough in the last couple of years. Simply put, Other M is a different game in a Metroid coat. Lastly, I have no idea where I am going with this post, but I have written all this and don't want it to go to waste. So here it is, all posted. |
I agree with the first part you wrote, I hate people who think women being feminine is somehow sexist; wouldn't it rather be sexist to say that femininity is a bad thing to be expressed? Sounds like men from Afghanistan.
...but not the second part. Particularly because Metroid Fusion was by far my favourite Metroid game. You can't really damage her character anyway, there wasn't really much to damage before anyway - she was really bland as a character up until Fusion, and could have been replaced by someone else, and I doubt many would have really cared a great deal.
I haven't played Zero Mission or Other M - but maybe I'll try them out; if the people who are saying they're bad are the same as those saying Fusion is bad - then I'm probably not going to agree with them.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
Khuutra said:
It is not clear what point you are trying to make here |
Just that the current views of Feminism in developed countries are far from being as simple and clear as when the movement was created, which has cast doubt on whether these are justified or not, even from some of those who support its original principle of gender "equality" and identify themselves as "feminists" (like the writers mentioned above). The movement already managed to achieve most, if not all, of their original goals in these countries, making some people wonder if the current situation isn't as good as it gets.
Just that.
Pineapple said:
His perception about feminism isn't completely wrong, and it isn't wholly uncommon either. Plenty of equal rights workers - including, and probably especially, feminists - are working for equal rights, but from a false view of justice. A good example of this is the fight for equal salaries between male and female workers in Norway today (it might be true in other countries as well, but Norway is the only place I know the situation well enough to speak of). To a very large extent, I believe Norway has now reached fairness in salaries. There are some apparent problems that are still being fought though, such as a larger portion of leaders being male, and women on average earning less than men. These apparent problems are, however, largely down the genders not actually being identical. Women and men don't choose the exact same things in life, and women are more prone to choose family, while men are more prone to choose work. I'm not sure how widely accepted that is, but it seems likely, especially from a biological viewpoint. The leaders in companies are, ultimately, the ones who put their heart and soul into the company, and who focus on little else. If you believe that men and women are different, it makes sense that a larger portion of men end up in leader positions. Additionally, women in Norway have a tendency to choose working in the public sector, while men tend to work in the private sector. Salaries in the public sector are lower, but you have a better pension, and a far more secure job, as it's (virtually) impossible to be fired in the public sector, and there's no chance the government will go bankrupt. So the women have slightly lower salaries, but it's a tradeoff for other benefits. Many feminists in Norway don't really get this viewpoint at all. They see that the situation is unequal, and therefore decide that women are being discriminated against, and that therefore laws have to be changed. Several laws have been passed that haven't really been about equal rights, but evening out the differences what men and women choose. Which isn't necessary, because it's perfectly fine that people choose differently. Women should have all the same opportunities as men do. And they more or less do today (at least in Norway). Up to a few years ago, this was all equal rights working wanted - and they succeeded. Which is brilliant. But several equal rights workers today are working toward making equally many men and women choose the same - or even forcing them to - which is completely wrong. I'd say they aren't really feminists, but "homogenists". Feminism is now partially a bad word because it has been soured by people doing stupid things in its name. Stupid things that aren't proper feminism at all. This ended up being a bit of a digression - and a bit longer than I expected - so sorry about that. I don't really have a lot to add on the Samus-specific part of the debate. |
What you are missing is... such choices aren't biological, but cultural.
Women do those things because more often because society expects them to do those things more often.
Long after equaity is achieved do to choices, unequality needs to be recognized because unequal choices will be made due to socialization.
I mean, when you think about how much kids get culturally programmed when they're younger.
Think about the kind of stuff you'd buy a 2 year old boy and a 2 year old girl... or the things you'd say about each or treat each.
Kasz216 said:
What you are missing is... such choices aren't biological, but cultural. Women do those things because more often because society expects them to do those things more often. Long after equaity is achieved do to choices, unequality needs to be recognized because unequal choices will be made due to socialization. I mean, when you think about how much kids get culturally programmed when they're younger. Think about the kind of stuff you'd buy a 2 year old boy and a 2 year old girl... or the things you'd say about each or treat each. |
Right. Just like we've moved past the clear problems of hard racism and into the murky zone of soft racism, so have we done with sexism, and that there is a lot of socialization giong on that promotes various things.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
seiya19 said:
Just that the current views of Feminism in developed countries are far from being as simple and clear as when the movement was created, which has cast doubt on whether these are justified or not, even from some of those who support its original principle of gender "equality" and identify themselves as "feminists" (like the writers mentioned above). The movement already managed to achieve most, if not all, of their original goals in these countries, making some people wonder if the current situation isn't as good as it gets. Just that. |
To clarify: your point is that some people wonder whether or not it's impossible to progress further in terms of social equalities and gender-based privileges, thereby calling into question, for them, the purpose of the feminist discourse?
I don't see how that reflects on the reality of the aim of the discourse; more, I do not think it relates to this topic.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
